Federal Judge Strikes Down New York City's Dragnet That Seized Thousands Of Cars Without Warrants

In the latest blow against civil forfeiture, Judge Ronnie Abrams ruled that New York City’s policy of seizing cars without warrants violated the owners’ Fourth Amendment rights. As part of a strategy to crack down on unlicensed taxis and other vehicles for-hire, between 2012 and 2015, inspectors for the city’s Taxi & Limousine Commission (TLC) seized nearly 25,000 cars they suspected were transporting passengers without the government’s permission. During that time, a medallion to own or lease a taxi cost over $1 million, preventing many New Yorkers from running their own lawful cab companies.

Under the city’s administrative code, a car can be forfeited if the owner has previously violated the city’s for-hire vehicle code at least twice in the past 36 months. But when inspectors seized plaintiffs Susan Calvo and Kelly Macon’s cars, inspectors had no information on their histories. Nor had inspectors investigated any of their previous violations.

(Photo by Stephanie Keith/Getty Images)

As Judge Abrams recounted, “the city has provided no evidence that the TLC inspectors who effected the seizures at issue had any reasonable basis for believing that Calvo or Macon had been ‘convicted’ of or ‘found liable’ for any prior violations at the time of the seizures.”

In fact, even the Commission’s Deputy Chief of Enforcement admitted in his deposition that inspectors “don’t look” at “whether or not [a] vehicle or [a] driver has been cited,” He further revealed that while inspectors could call to find out if “that vehicle has been seized before,” that information “does not play into any decision if that vehicle’s going to be seized or not.”

Since the city “provided no evidence” that its inspectors knew of an owner’s prior violations when seizing their vehicle, “TLC inspectors do not have probable cause to believe a vehicle is subject to forfeiture,” and so those seizures run afoul of the Fourth Amendment.

Incredibly, the New York City decision actually marks the second time the TLC’s warrantless dragnet has been ruled unconstitutional. Calvo and Macon’s lawsuit emerged from an earlier class action that was also filed against the Commission’s seizure policy. But that class-action lawsuit was limited to property owners whose cars had been seized “based on allegations of first-time violations.”

In September 2015, Judge Valerie Caproni ruled in favor of the owners, who included not just unlicensed cab drivers, but also ordinary New Yorkers who faced baseless charges. One of the plaintiffs, Pedro Camacho, had his car seized after TLC inspectors believed he had dropped off an Asian woman at JFK airport who had paid for a ride. In reality, Camacho had dropped off his (Hispanic) niece, who wasn’t even questioned by inspectors. Fortunately for him, the commission ultimately dropped charges and returned his seized car.

Judge Caproni also rejected the TLC’s arguments that the cars were contraband or “pose[d] a danger to society,” either of which would permit a warrantless seizure. “‘Probable cause’ is not a talismanic phrase that can be waved like a wand to justify the seizure of any property without a warrant,” she wrote.

However, while both judges agreed that the seizures violated the Fourth Amendment for first-time and repeat offenders, they split on due process. Unlike the first-time offenders, Calvo and Macon’s cars could be seized for civil forfeiture, which meant that those seizures could happen without a hearing beforehand.

Judge Abrams ruled that “the city’s procedures comply with due process,” because they mandate a prompt hearing. Under the code, an administrative hearing must be held within five business days of a vehicle seizure. At that hearing, the Taxi and Limousine Tribunal has to decide if “the owner engaged in the unlicensed activity alleged,” and, if shown, demonstrate that the owner had at least two prior violations.

The tribunal must also determine if it’s necessary to keep the car impounded as the forfeiture case proceeds. Additionally, the city allows owners to post a bond before the hearing in order to quickly retrieve their cars; in one instance, Calvo recovered her vehicle hours after it was seized.

At least the administrative code gets that right though it would be better if the post-seizure hearing were held before a neutral magistrate instead of agency officials. Denying property owners a prompt, post-seizure hearing violates basic principles of fairness.

Notably, several civil-forfeiture schemes have been struck down for lacking this critical safeguard. One month before this decision, a federal judge struck down Indiana’s vehicle seizure laws as unconstitutional. Under state law, it could take up to 180 days before a Hoosier could get their day in court.

Both of those cases in turn relied on Krimstock v. Kelly, a landmark decision written by none other than Sonia Sotomayor, before she joined the U.S. Supreme Court. In Krimstock, New York City’s DWI vehicle seizure program was deemed “constitutionally infirm” because cars could be retained for “months or sometimes years without any prompt hearing before a neutral fact-finder.”

That case could also provide some legal firepower to a new class-action lawsuit against U.S. Customs and Border Protection. Last month, the Institute for Justice filed sued CBP on behalf of Gerardo Serrano, an American citizen and lawful gun owner who had his truck seized in 2015 because CBP agents found five bullets inside. Gerardo who was never charged with a crime. One month after he filed his lawsuit (and more than two years after his truck was taken), the CBP finally returned his Ford F-250. His lawsuit for other property owners is still ongoing.

“No judge would have approved the seizure of Gerardo’s truck,” noted Anya Bidwell, an attorney at the Institute for Justice. “And that’s precisely why CBP is giving it back. We’re just saying the agency should have to explain themselves to a judge promptly after it first takes the property.”

Gerardo Serrano.Institute for Justice.

I'm a writer and legislative analyst at the Institute for Justice (IJ), a public interest law firm. As a member of IJ’s Communications team, I regularly write opeds and blog about economic liberty, private property rights, the First Amendment and judicial engagement. On the ...